- The Washington Times - Thursday, September 6, 2007

Several months ago, Shi’ite cleric Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr crawled out of hiding in Iran to incite followers to violence in Iraq. His rhetoric leaves one only to imagine the kind of job description that might have attracted Sheik al-Sadr and those of his ilk to their calling:

Wanted: Inflammatory spiritual leader to enrage listeners to become suicide bombers or to commit other acts of violence; candidate need not practice what he preaches; extensive religious training not required but claiming a father who was a spiritual leader is helpful; compensation determined by candidate’s ability to influence followers to tithe 20 percent of income which candidate can, at his own discretion, use to distribute to the poor or retain for himself; candidate must be HIV-positive i.e., able to preach Hatred, Intolerance and Violence so as to effectively infect followers and spread this disease. Such is the world of the Islamofascist imam.

While Sheik al-Sadr‘s religious credentials are weak, his only real claim to fame is the popularity of his late father, Ayatollah Mohammed Sadek Al-Sadr, who was killed by Saddam Hussein in 1999. Using his father’s popularity as a springboard to create a militant Shi’ite movement, the younger Sheik al-Sadr only came to prominence after Baghdad fell in 2003.

Having gone to Iran just before U.S. forces implemented their surge plan, Sheik al-Sadr broadcast a call for violence, though it is uncertain he returned to Iraq to deliver it. Undoubtedly, he was motivated out of fear to speak out — a fear shared by predecessor zealot imams centuries before: the fear of losing power.

For several centuries after the Koran’s publication in the seventh century, questions arose among Muslims as to whether, in a changing world, certain activities — never addressed by the Koran and upon which no Shariah scholars had subsequently ruled — were appropriate. Imams lacking extensive religious training were unable to provide guidance, endangering their status as spiritual leaders. Fearing a loss of power, they sought to stifle independent thought among believers, charging all such matters could only be decided by Muslim jurists, threatening death for those challenging this practice, known as “ijtihad.” This practice opposed the use of reason, enabling imams to bridge the knowledge gap they were incapable of filling so as to retain power.

Such hypocrisy by imam extremists continues today. While encouraging acts of violence such as suicide bombings against nonbelievers, to date not a single imam — or child of an imam — has undertaken such a sacrificial act himself. Unlike Christian religious leaders who practice what they preach concerning the sanctity of life, sacrificing their own lives on occasion to save others as did the “Four Chaplains” of World War II fame, these imams are quick to talk the talk but not walk the walk.

A recent example is Islamofascist Imam Abdul Aziz who, insisting on Islamic law in Pakistan, initiated the violence in July at the Red Mosque in Islamabad. He brazenly exclaimed three months earlier he was ready to sacrifice his life for the effort. Yet, as Pakistani forces lay siege to the mosque, a not-so-self-sacrificing Imam Aziz was caught among a group of women, dressed in a burqa, trying to escape — his height and “pot belly” compromising his disguise.

The murder last year of a Muslim ice-maker in Baghdad further underscores this hypocrisy. Taught that strict adherence to Islam mandates all Muslims live life today as did Muhammad in the seventh century, believers killed the vendor, rationalizing that ice did not exist in Muhammad’s time. Lost on the killers and the imam influencing them, however, was their use of AK-47s to murder the vendor — weapons that also did not exist in Muhammad’s time.

For simply preaching the HIV doctrine, imams receive hefty compensation — up to 20 percent of a follower’s income. They are supposed to share these donations with the poor, but there is no accountability as to how much, if any, they so share. A leading Iranian Shi’ite cleric, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, amassed considerable wealth, undoubtedly by giving less and keeping more.

The foundation for Islamofascism today is built by religious leaders using positions of trust to inject followers with HIV-positive venom. Like Sheik al-Sadr, many lack solid religious training. As such, they are able to promote teachings contrary to peaceful Islam, becoming a conduit through which violence toward nonbelievers goes out and wealth to them comes in.

Unlike medical practitioners who take the Hippocratic Oath to save lives, these extremist Islamic religious practitioners take a “Hypocritical Oath” to destroy them. The hypocrisy of such teachings must be fully exposed if we ever hope to crack the extremist foundation.

James G. Zumwalt, a Marine veteran of the Persian Gulf and Vietnam wars, is a contributor to The Washington Times.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide